Helen Whately MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She is making an important point about the fact that we need not just the minimum but the maximum. We need really strong commitments. The Cleve Hill solar development in the village of Graveney in my constituency is huge. It has obliterated 900 acres of agricultural land and marshland. While it has been in construction, there has been enormous disruption to the local village and schools, and damage to the roads and to people’s properties. I want my constituents to get proper compensation and ongoing economic benefit—not just lip service in the form of a playground or cycle path, but something that recognises the massive impact of the development on their lives.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question. It is a shame that the Minister had to be dragged here. Last week, the Secretary of State was only too eager to talk about this report on the telly. Where is he today? Why so quiet now? I think we all know. The Secretary of State has been caught out telling the devastating truth about Labour MPs: “who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others”? That is what Labour MPs really think, and that is what the Government have done. They have put up people’s taxes, spent more on benefits and left hard-working people with less to live off. Once again, Labour’s shenanigans are getting in the way of something we really should be talking about. Every morning, a million young people wake up in Britain with nothing to do and nowhere to go. This is a disaster for our country, our economy and, worst of all, for all those young people: Labour’s lost generation. The Minister said that it started under us—yes, the numbers did start going up from the pandemic, so this was not a surprise for Ministers—yet here we are after almost two years of Labour in office and it still has no plan. All it has done is make the situation worse, and of course commission this big report. I welcome Alan Milburn’s contribution—it is a serious analysis—but Milburn himself says it is just a diagnosis; there are no solutions, actual answers or policies. In fact, he even tells us that the things the Government have been doing—their “piecemeal” programmes—are not going to work. He also says that after six months of inactivity, young people are far less likely ever to work. This is urgent, but where is Labour’s urgency? This is not the first time Labour has let down young people: the number of NEETs soared to 17% after Labour’s last stint in government. The Conservatives turned that around to less than 10% in 2019. Of course, covid undermined that progress, but the Labour Government have turned a post-pandemic problem into a crisis by taxing jobs, tying up businesses in red tape, making it riskier and more expensive to hire a young person, and destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs in retail and hospitality. Like many young people, one of my first jobs was working in a local pub, but Labour has pulled the plug on that opportunity for this generation. Whenever we do get to hear Labour’s plans, we know what they will be: spending more money and taxing people more to pay for it. That is the wrong answer. The answer is jobs, to back businesses, to cut taxes, to get rid of red tape, to get government out of the way and to reform welfare—

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  I respect the Secretary of State. He has talked at some length about what is wrong with the welfare system, but the fact is that there is no welfare Bill in the King’s Speech. I reckon he is stuck between a rock and a hard place: he knows the benefits bill is out of control; he knows that the public are sick of seeing their taxes go on ever higher welfare handouts; he even knows how the savings could be made because I have told him [ Laughter. ] They are laughing, but they are the problem. The Secretary of State also knows that the MPs behind him will have none of it. With the Prime Minister clinging on by a thread, no wonder there was no welfare Bill in the King’s Speech. Here is the problem: failure to grip welfare puts the Government dangerously out of touch with people out there—the people he, I and all of us are here to serve. Let me read from an email that I received recently from a constituent; I will call her Sandra. She says: “I am writing to you with utter frustration. We work so hard and for what? What is the point of working please tell me. To watch everyone else do nothing and get paid more than you! I’ve done the benefit calculation online and I’d be better off quitting my job…I’d be better off getting universal credit…how is that normal or fair?” My constituent is far from alone. I have heard that feeling expressed time and again since I have been shadow Secretary of State—on the doorsteps, in the pub, in the supermarket, on the train and all over social media. Beyond Westminster, people are despairing. Family breadwinners are losing their jobs, homes are being sold to pay the bills and young people are losing hope. Millions have drifted out of work, and for many, claiming benefits simply makes more sense. For those who are working, each month they are seeing their earnings disappearing in higher taxes and higher bills, with nothing left over. No wonder they are fed up. People who are doing the right thing are paying for people who have opted out. And what is Labour doing about it? Absolutely nothing. The Government are making a big mistake because the bald fact is that alarm- clock Britain is sick of paying out for “Benefits Street”.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  Oh dear; what a shame. There were no ideas for savings there at all. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that will get him a job under the next Labour leader, I am afraid that he will have to keep trying. Labour claims to be the party of working people, but the facts do not back that up. Labour always leaves office with unemployment higher than when it arrives, and it is on track to do that again. There are now over 300,000 more people unemployed than when this Government came to power. Their policies—the jobs tax, the Employment Rights Act—have actively killed jobs. Now, as mentioned in yesterday’s King’s Speech, we have the regulating for growth Bill. You couldn’t make it up. Employers are being asked to swim against the tide with bricks in their pockets, and now the Government are planning to make it worse. Many businesses have stopped hiring; others are letting people go. Businesses tell me that they are getting hundreds of applications for jobs that they might have struggled to fill a couple of years ago. No wonder that there are 700,000 graduates on out-of-work benefits. Youth unemployment is at over 14%. This is a disaster. Young people want to get their lives going, earn money, pay their own way, save for a car; instead, hundreds of thousands are stuck. The Secretary of State knows that. That is why he has frantically announced a flurry of schemes at the cost of £2.5 billion. Obviously, a work placement is better than nothing, but the young people I speak to want jobs, not Government-funded work experience. Less than two years ago, the country voted us out and Labour Members in. They have laughed and jeered at us, but they are not laughing now because they have found out that governing is hard. They promised voters change, but the only change that most people have seen is that they are poorer. Who knows what they got up to in opposition? Clearly, it was not working out what they would do if they won the election. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is chuntering. I know that yesterday he called the Leader of the Opposition “rude” when, actually, she was just telling the truth. He does not like to hear the truth. Maybe he should do a little less talking from the Front Bench and a little more listening. Being in power is not an end in itself; what matters is what someone does with the power that voters trust them with. I am sure that many of those on the Government Benches care about our country, but caring is not enough. The question is: what are they going to do to fix it? If the King’s Speech that we are debating today tells us anything, it is that they do not know. The only things they can think of will make the situation worse; and on welfare, they have given up. I believe in learning lessons whenever one can. One lesson that Labour Members should learn is to make good use of time in opposition; work hard, think hard and make a plan. That is what we have been doing, and that is why we have been able to set out an alternative King’s Speech, which has more in it than the actual King’s Speech. Take our plans for welfare—and to be clear, these are just our plans so far. We have a plan to reform welfare and make £23 billion in savings. We will bring back the two-child benefit cap, stop handouts to foreign nationals, stop sickness benefits for anxiety and ADHD, bring back face-to-face assessments, ban “sickfluencers”, reform fit notes and restore the household benefit cap to its original purpose of ensuring work always pays better than benefits. No more gaming the system, no more free cars for tennis elbow or acne—Britain will no longer be a cash machine for the world. People have had enough. They can see our welfare system is not working. It is not even working for people who are seriously ill or disabled. We are not keeping our plan secret; it is all out there. Other parties are adopting our policies. Reform, for instance, has not been shy about doing so, although it has been confused, and its Members are not here today. The Secretary of State should feel free to do so too, and though the MPs behind him will hate it, we are here to help. This is the most surreal King’s Speech debate I have ever taken part in. People out there are angry, frustrated and fed up. They can see the country is not working. They want the Government to fix it, but Labour are too busy working out who should be in charge. The saddest thing is that it will not make a difference. They can change their team captain, but they are still the same team. I have heard them cheer on taxes for farmers, family businesses and schools. I have heard them cheer for lifting the two-child cap. I have heard them argue against welfare savings. They think you fix poverty by giving out free breakfasts, paid for by people who are struggling to pay the bills themselves. Labour’s answer is always the same: tax more and spend more of other people’s money, and it is the wrong answer. Sometimes in life you have to pick a side. We have picked one: we are on the side of people who get up each day and go to work. They are doing the right thing, and we back them. Sometimes things go wrong and people need help. That is why welfare should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. Labour have made their choice: it is to carry on as if nothing is wrong. Yesterday’s King’s Speech was a chance to fix things, and they blew it.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me begin by welcoming the Minister back to his place—we missed him last night, and it is good to see him back in the Chamber. Throughout our many debates, we have broadly agreed on the policy intent behind most of the Bill, but as I have said time and again, agreement on the principles of a Bill is not the same as offering the Minister unqualified support for every measure in it, particularly the power contained in clause 40, the power of mandation—or the reserve power, as the Chief Secretary calls it—which enables Ministers to instruct pension funds where to invest. When the Bill was first introduced, that mandation power was truly breathtaking in its scope. It was extraordinary—an unconstrained power that would have allowed the Secretary of State access to 100% of at least £400 billion-worth of auto-enrolment default pension funds. It would have allowed Ministers to direct their investment in whatever way they saw fit. What happened the moment that became clear to people? Members sitting opposite and, indeed, behind me—not least those in Reform UK—were already queuing up with pet projects and struggling sectors. They thought that savers’ money should be used for net zero schemes, steel and renationalising water. They were not proposing those measures on the grounds of the return on investment for savers, and the income that they would generate for people’s later life; that much is obvious. But we said no—no to politicians having that power, no to Ministers directing pension savings into their pet projects, and no to overriding the interests of savers in favour of politicians desperate for access to capital. I was clear from the outset that the power was dangerous and had no place in the Bill. After sustained pressure from the industry, from the other place and from this side of the House, the Government have, very slowly, been forced to row back. They have rowed back from a power grab that threatened trust in auto-enrolment pensions and risked damaging savers’ retirement incomes. Let us be clear about what those concessions amount to. First, on allocation limits, the original Bill contained no cap whatsoever on how much of a saver’s pension could be mandated into specified assets. Now, after pressure, the Government have imposed hard limits. No more than 10% of a default fund may be directed into qualifying assets, and no more than 5% may be directed specifically into UK assets. That is a major retreat from the original proposal. Secondly, on sunset and single-use restrictions, the Government have brought forward the expiry date of the reserve power to 2032, if unused. They will repeal the whole regime by 2035 unless it is renewed by fresh primary legislation, and have limited the core mandation power so that it can be exercised only once—another retreat. Thirdly, the scope has been narrowed. Mandation can now apply only to the main default auto-enrolment fund, not the entire pension scheme or every pot—again, another retreat. Today we have had further concessions. The Government now accept that before this power can be exercised, regulators must conduct an independent assessment of whether a genuine collective action problem exists—whereby no one wants to be the first mover—and whether that problem is inhibiting investment in private markets. We have been consistent in our view that mandation is not the right solution, but we accept that requiring independent assessment before the power can be exercised is a safeguard against ministerial overreach, and I appreciate the Pensions Minister’s assurances from the Dispatch Box on the weight of evidence required. The Government have also accepted that the reserve power cannot be used before 2028—again, another retreat. The Government have further strengthened the savers’ interest test following yesterday’s amendment. Schemes will no longer have to prove that compliance would likely cause “material financial detriment”. Instead, they need only demonstrate that compliance is likely not to be in the best interests of members, thereby aligning the test with trustees’ existing fiduciary duties. That matters, because fiduciary duty is sacrosanct and must be protected. Nothing is more important in a modern pension system than the duty to act solely in the best interests of savers. That duty is the foundation on which trust in our pension system rests. This amendment means that in a conflict between mandation and fiduciary duty, fiduciary duty wins—again, another important retreat. Finally, the Government have agreed to remove discrimination between investment vehicles by clarifying that both direct and indirect holdings in the relevant asset classes count towards compliance—the final retreat. Every one of those changes tells the same story: the Government introduced a power that was too broad, too vague and too dangerous. Step by step, and under pressure, they have been forced to narrow it, constrain it and hedge it with safeguards. Why? Because the original power was indefensible, and because the Government knew that the concerns were real. The work that we have done has obliterated the Government’s original proposal. As it stands now, the mandation power looks nothing like how it was first imagined. What began as a sweeping ministerial power grab has been stripped back, pared down and boxed in on all sides. Only now, after our intervention, has it become at least palatable. It is a vestige of its former overmighty self—a shrivelled husk. Let me be clear: we do not believe that the Government should direct private capital, or that Ministers should interfere in investment decisions that are properly left to trustees and markets. Here we have Labour doing what it always does: thinking that the Government are the answer, with the state going where it has no place to go. When the Conservatives return to government, we will remove mandation from the statute book entirely, because at the heart of this policy lies a dangerous assumption that Ministers in Whitehall know better than trustees, fund managers and markets on how to invest the public’s pension savings. I have yet to meet anyone who wants a politician managing their pension, and pensions belong to the people who earn them, not Government Ministers. It is as simple as that.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is quoting selectively from a letter that I have written to the industry. We had this exact debate with the Pensions Minister last week. There is an acknowledged and debated collective action problem; on that, there is a level of consensus, but there is no consensus that mandation is the right answer. In fact, there is a consensus in the sector that mandation is the wrong answer. This Bill contains measures that will make a difference, and will go towards fixing this collective action problem, such as the value for money framework. The Mansion House accord was only signed last year, and the Government should give it time to work. We do not need mandation in this Bill.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for opening this evening’s debate, and for setting out the latest Government amendments, in place of the Pensions Minister? These ping-pong sessions with the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) have become a regular in my diary, and I will miss him this evening. When this Bill was introduced last summer, we said that much of it was a sensible step forward that built on the work of the previous Conservative Government. We stand by that view, but supporting the broad direction of a Bill does not mean unqualified support for its every provision. Throughout its passage, we have challenged the Government on the local government pension scheme, on member communications and on the scale requirements in the Bill, but you will be pleased to know that those debates are behind us, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today, there is just one issue left: mandation, or, as the Government prefer to call it, the reserve power—a power that sat in clause 40 until the noble Lords once again removed it from the Bill last Wednesday. The Government’s case for this power is straightforward: they want more pension investment in private markets and, by extension, more pension investment in the UK. That was the ambition behind the Mansion House accord, and it is an ambition that we share. We want to see the accord succeed, we want more productive investment, and we want pension capital to work harder for savers, but although the ambition is right, this policy is not. Mandation is the wrong lever to achieve those aims. As the House has heard from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) at each stage of this Bill, mandation is flawed both in principle and in practice. The Government may call it a reserve power, but everyone knows what it is: a threat hanging over pension schemes if they do not fall into line. The Mansion House accord was a voluntary agreement built on trust, with mutual commitments between industry and the Government. Mandation replaces trust with a threat in law. Why would the pension sector, or in fact any sector, ever try to come together and agree a voluntary pact with the Government again if it is hammered into law a few months later? Mandation puts in statute a power that, though more limited in its current manifestation, could be put to all manner of uses. It cuts across the fundamental duty of trustees to act in the best interests of savers; instead, that duty is trumped by Government requirements in law. It means that pension savings, or a share of them, will be put to work to serve the interests of the Government, not the interests of the saver who wants their pension to provide them with a decent income in later life. Perhaps most seriously of all, mandation risks undermining public trust in the pension system. That is why the power is not just unnecessary; it is dangerous and has no place in this Bill. I will now turn to the Government’s latest amendments on mandation that are before us today, which apply to the so-called savers’ interest test. At the moment, if a pension scheme believes that complying with the Government’s mandation power would not be in the members’ interests, it may apply for an exemption, but to secure one, it must show that compliance would cause “material financial detriment” for members. That is an extraordinarily high bar. The Government have heard the concerns raised in this House and the other place, particularly by Lady Bowles, and have now brought forward further amendments. The Minister told us that the amendments will strengthen the exemption process. Well, they do make it slightly easier for schemes to argue that a mandated investment allocation may damage returns. Instead of having to prove that mandation “would” cause material financial detriment, schemes will now need to show that such detriment is just “likely”—we have gone from “would” to “likely”. Frankly, if the Minister thinks that this one-word change offers a truly robust safeguard, I urge him to think again. The need for these amendments tells its own story: the Government accept that mandation risks conflicting with the duties that trustees and pension providers owe to savers. If no such conflict existed, there would be no need at all for an exemption process. The right to appeal, enhanced through today’s amendments, demonstrates that Ministers accept that mandation may force schemes away from doing what is in their members’ best interests. Under the amended Bill, schemes must still prove likely financial harm before they are allowed to do what is best for savers. That misunderstands the principle at the heart of fiduciary duty. Trustees should not need state approval to act in the best interests of their members. These amendments just tinker at the margins; they do not fix the flaw in the policy. I have been talking in somewhat technical terms, but I want to remind the House of the consequences of what we are talking about. If the Government push pension schemes into the wrong investments, those investments underperform and savers end up with weaker returns, who carries the can? Not the Minister, who has stepped in valiantly today, and not the Government, who legislated for this power. It will be pensioners, who will retire with less. Let us remember whose pensions we are talking about here. Who is most likely to suffer if the Government turn out to be a poor asset manager? The millions of workers who contribute via auto-enrolment—people who have never chosen an investment strategy, but who trust pension providers to do the right thing on their behalf. Those people are not poring over fund fact sheets; they are getting on with work and supporting themselves and their families, hoping that one day they will be able to retire with financial security. This policy asks those savers to place their trust not in pension managers, but in Government Ministers. In doing so, it risks undermining the very trust on which auto-enrolment depends. We can debate whether the level of auto-enrolment is right, but no one challenges whether it is a good thing overall. Yet the Government are putting at risk this success story, around which there has been great political consensus, and the consequences do not stop with pension savers. What signal does this send to the wider investment community? We hear that major City reforms are to come in the King’s Speech, but will the market really greet those reforms with confidence if this Bill becomes law with mandation in it? Confidence would be created if investors could see that the Government are committed to making the UK a good place to invest in. Mandation sends the opposite message. It tells people that we have a Government who are prepared to go where the UK state does not usually go: to get involved in the allocation of private capital. It tells people that the Government will take a shortcut to getting investment in the UK by forcing pension schemes to do so, rather than fixing the underlying problems. I do not think that the Minister’s colleagues have really thought this through. The easy answer is rarely the right answer. Where does that leave us? It leaves us at an impasse, with agreement on the diagnosis but profound disagreement on the prescription. We all want more pension investment in the UK, and the Conservatives support moving from a focus on cost to a focus on value. We support removing barriers to the Mansion House accord, but there is no consensus for state compulsion. Pensions belong to the people who earn them, not Ministers. I have yet to find anyone who wants to trust a politician with their hard-earned pension savings, but that is exactly what the Government are trying to force on the country’s savers through this Bill. Today the Minister finds himself tasked with defending the indefensible, and one provision is preventing an otherwise good Bill from passing. The Government amendments make mandation less bad, but if something is wrong in principle, it does not become right in smaller doses. I leave the Government with one simple message: remove mandation, and the job is done—this Bill will pass.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget”. That is the view of the author of the Government’s strategic defence review, the Labour peer, former Labour Defence Secretary and former Secretary-General of NATO Lord Robertson. Which will the Secretary of State choose: defending the country or paying people not to work?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  I was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), so let me help him. Unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds is at 14.3%—that means that one in seven young people is unemployed. There are thousands fewer jobs and thousands fewer vacancies under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. I speak to young people across the country, who tell me that it is desperately difficult to get a job, and it is no wonder. His Government have made it much harder for businesses to employ people, especially young people. I appreciate that the Secretary of State may be trying his best with his plethora of work schemes, but they are just a sticking plaster for the damage that the Chancellor has wreaked. Governments do not create jobs; businesses do. His Government need to change tack and back businesses to create opportunities for the next generation. I am on their side—isn’t he? Will he help the Chancellor understand before it is too late?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What a difference a week makes. When the hon. Gentleman rose to conclude our debate last Wednesday, he delivered from the Dispatch Box what I can only describe as a tirade. Serious and considered concerns—not just from me and my hon. Friends, but from noble Lords and many respected people across the industry—were met with accusations. We were told that those concerns were “nonsense on stilts”. He said that I had been “infected” by my party. If by that he meant that I have strong opinions—that I believe in a smaller state because Governments do not have all the answers and often need to get out of the way—then I must break the news to him that I have held those views for many years. I came to Parliament after a career in business. I knew my views then, and I still know them now. Last week I thought that the Minister could and should do better, and I am glad that since then he has. His tone has shifted, and I am grateful for the discussions he has had with me and my team. His engagement has been constructive, and we have indeed made progress. Turning to the amendments tabled since our last debate, I first welcome the Government’s commitment on the local government pension scheme. A faster and wider review of the triennial valuation by the Government Actuary’s Department is sensible and significant. If the review is to be meaningful, it must focus on what actually drives employer contribution rates, and we welcome that the Government have now recognised that. Secondly, the Government have committed, in their amendment in lieu of Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s amendment 77, to examine the costs and sustainability of public sector pensions. That too is welcome. That review should consider questions of intergenerational fairness, long-term sustainability and how best to protect the benefits already promised to people, particularly at a time when demands on the state are rising and taxpayers are being asked to contribute more than ever.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Who knew that the Pension Schemes Bill would become so controversial? It is a Bill on which there was so much consensus; a Bill begun by one party in government and now being continued by another; a Bill that could have sailed through Parliament. But no, that was not to be, because the Government had an idea—a bad idea. Labour saw £400 billion-worth of pension funds, the savings built up through years of successful auto-enrolment, and it was tempted. We can picture Labour Members looking at the pensions piggybank and saying to each other, “Just imagine what we could do with that money—we could perhaps put it towards some of the Energy Secretary’s net zero schemes.” They have taxed the country to the hilt, they cannot bring themselves to make savings on welfare, and they have run the Treasury dry, so now they are coming for pensions. Labour snuck in the power that we talk about as mandation under the auspices of a backstop to the voluntary Mansion House agreement. Well, well, well. It really did not have to be this way. If only the Pensions Minister had been a little more receptive to suggestions from other parties or from the pension sector itself. It is hard to find anyone who supports his mandation policy. Pensions UK, the Pensions Management Institute, the Association of British Insurers, Aviva and BlackRock—I could go on—are all against mandation, as are any number of economists and respected voices, from Paul Johnson to Dominic Lawson, and even the Minister’s former colleague Ed Balls. In the other place, noble Lords in their droves have sought to expose this policy for what it is. He should have listened to their debate, as I did, but listening may not be something he likes to do. He even blocked one respected industry voice, Tom McPhail, on social media when Tom simply called out mandation for what it is: a dangerous power grab by the Government.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have lost control of welfare. The benefits bill is ballooning. Sickness benefits alone will cost us £109 billion by the end of the decade. Working-age benefits are costing £161 billion right now and rising. But instead of bringing forward welfare savings, Labour MPs have chosen to spend ever more on benefits. Just the other day, they backed an extra £3 billion spending on scrapping the two-child benefit cap. It is all paid for in the same way—by taxpayers, by hard-working people, and by the businesses that employ them. First the Government tax jobs, and then they wonder why there are fewer of them. Let me tell them: if you tax it, you get less of it. Under Labour, unemployment has gone up month after month. Our youth unemployment now rivals that of Greece, at over 16%. That is one in six young people out of work, wanting employment but denied the chance—and a university degree will not save them, either. Some 700,000 graduates are out of work, and nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. So many young people have done everything asked of them. They have studied hard, done their exams and got their grades, but now they are getting rejection after rejection to their job applications. The Government are letting down a whole generation, and the Secretary of State knows it. He said so himself this week on the radio. He talked about the “scarring effects” of youth unemployment: worse mental health, worse outcomes and even lower life expectancy. He is right, so why are his Government making things so much worse? Let us be clear about what this new policy is. It is not a jobs plan or a serious new deal for young people; it is a sticking-plaster, and an expensive one costing over £1 billion. These are state-subsidised jobs to replace the real ones that Labour has killed. The Secretary of State has laid into our record on apprenticeships, but he knows perfectly well that the drop he refers to happened because we raised the standard of apprenticeships to make them a qualification that would actually count, and to make them a meaningful alternative to university, not just a way for businesses to get cheaper workers. I warn him not to just chase higher numbers in his reforms; quality matters. And why are the Government doing nothing about dead-end degrees and mounting student debt? Why not adopt the policy we have announced of cutting back on low-value degrees, and using the saving to increase apprenticeships? This Government’s answer is to just go back, cap in hand, to the taxpayer. At the end of his statement, the Secretary of State talked about welfare reform, but why do we never hear the important word “savings”? I think we know why. The Government tried and failed to make welfare savings last summer. What has changed since then? The Prime Minister is only weaker and more indecisive, though the problem becomes ever more urgent. Today’s personal independence payment figures show that claims are up again. There are over 300,000 more people on PIP since Labour took over—a rise of 9%—and the number of young people claiming PIP has risen by 14%. There are nearly 150,000 more people claiming benefits for mental ill health and neurodiversity. I have been clear: this cannot go on. Benefits are not the right answer. Work is better for us. People who can work should work. The Secretary of State needs to answer some questions. Where exactly has the extra £1 billion that he has just announced for state-funded jobs come from? Will this latest plan actually bring down youth unemployment? Will it even touch the sides? How will he stop fraudulent claims for the cash? How will he make sure that no one loses their job because of his cash handouts? How will he make sure that all this spending makes a difference, and that he is not subsidising employment that would have happened anyway? Does he accept that taxing jobs on the one hand and subsidising them on the other is not an economic strategy, but the economics of the madhouse? Finally, can the Secretary of State at least agree that the benefits bill needs to come down? Perhaps he could take this chance to use the word “savings”. Does he see the irony? Does he understand my feeling of déjà vu? This is another plan from his party for welfare reform that spends more money, rather than saving it. When will he bring forward a plan to actually bring down the benefits bill? He talks about welfare reform; is this it?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions during the passage of this Bill. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who has argued with true passion against the Bill, drawing on her own experience as well as her sound principles. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) and for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), my right hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who spoke on Second Reading, and my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), who spoke in Committee this evening, and pointed out with customary clarity the flaws in the reasoning of Labour Members. We have all seen the strength of feeling among MPs who support this Bill, but passion does not make a policy right. Children are a blessing, but they are also a responsibility. Parents up and down the country work long hours and make sacrifices to bring up their children. Many couples question whether they can afford one child, let alone three, four or five. They make tough but responsible choices, yet this Bill means they will be taxed to fund other people who make choices they know they cannot afford, and that is fundamentally unfair. It is unfair to people who make responsible decisions, unfair to people who decide to live within their means and unfair to the people who cannot get a job, let alone afford to start a family, because this Government are wrecking the economy with ever higher spending and higher taxes. People do not get a pay rise from their employer when they have another child; they make their money stretch further. However, for people on universal credit, this Bill means their benefits will rise by thousands of pounds for each extra child they have. Some families are about to get tens of thousands of pounds extra. A single parent with five children will be able to get £10,000 more, and an annual income just from benefits of over £45,000 untaxed. To get the same through work, someone would need to earn £60,000. I heard that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is standing behind the Chair, was due to talk about welfare reform this evening. I say to him and all Labour Members that anyone serious about welfare reform or about ending the welfare trap would vote against a Bill that makes benefits pay this much more than work. Anyone serious about fiscal responsibility would not vote for a Bill that adds £3 billion a year to the ballooning welfare budget and costs £14 billion over the next five years. That money is not just sitting there jingling in the Treasury bank account waiting to be spent on this; it will have to be taken from a small business desperately trying not to let staff go, from a family already struggling with food and energy costs, or from the next generation through higher borrowing. However Ministers dress it up, someone else will pay. Labour Members have said that this Bill cuts child poverty. What they generally mean is that it reduces relative poverty, a statistic that tells us nothing about whether children’s lives are actually looking up. They ignore that relative poverty tends to look better when the country gets poorer, which is exactly what their policies are doing to this country. They have done it before and they are doing it again—taxing more to spend more, killing growth and killing jobs. What really makes a difference to children’s lives is having their parents in work, but what are the Government doing about that? They are making it less likely. Under this Government, we have seen— [ Interruption. ] I know that Labour Members do not want to hear it, but we have seen the fastest increase on record of children growing up without a parent in work. Unemployment has gone up every month; now it is at its highest for five years. This debate is about more than just one policy; it is about two different visions for our country. Labour’s answer to every challenge is the same: spend more money. Labour Members see people as victims of circumstance, and their instinct is always to compensate rather than change the circumstance. We see it differently. We know that children are better off if the country is better off; if there are more jobs, higher wages, lower inflation and stronger growth. Look at the moments in our history when living standards rose for everyone. It was when people were motivated to strive, ideas were turned into businesses and hard work reaped rewards. That is how countries get ahead and their children thrive. [ Interruption. ] I do not expect the argument that I am making to be popular in this Chamber, although— [ Interruption. ] I am not expecting Labour Members to like what I am saying, but it is popular out there in the real world. I know that every other party represented here wants to expand the state—not just Labour, but the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP, Plaid, and who knows how Reform will vote tonight? I can see one Reform MP is here; maybe somebody will help his colleagues to find their way to the right Lobby tonight. I think Reform now says that it would keep the cap, but it still does not back it in principle; it is just a question of timing. Well, well. The Prime Minister has decided that the time is now because he needed to save his skin. He is not a Prime Minister who will take the tough decisions to control the welfare bill and make work pay, because that would require a backbone and the support of his Back Benchers. Only Conservatives are prepared to make the argument for welfare savings and stand up for principles like fairness, personal responsibility and living within your means. Other parties compete to be more generous with other people’s money; we do not. Conservatives believe in a country where work pays, responsibility is valued, and welfare is a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. That is the difference not just over the two-child cap, but over the direction of Britain itself.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to Members on the Government Benches in a moment. I just ask them to think about the implications of the extra money that people will be receiving. Some people will—frankly and factually—calculate that they can boost their income far more by having children than by working. The best way out of poverty will not be work— [ Interruption. ] Government Members do not like to hear this, but I am afraid it is just rational. The best way out of poverty will not be work; it will be having babies. I want to address the argument that lifting the cap is necessary because women are not having enough babies. We know that a declining birth rate is a cause for concern, but falling birth rates are driven by many factors, including changes in people’s aspirations, the poor jobs market, the cost of housing and childcare, the penalties that motherhood imposes on careers and the changing nature of 21st-century relationships. Children are important and we need to have more, but the answer to that complex problem is not, “Here’s some cash for having a kid.”

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman listens to what I am about to say about the back and forth on this policy on his side of the House, he will see that he should think a bit harder before talking about “consistency”. So what is this Bill really about? If Labour truly believes that lifting the two-child limit is essential to tackling poverty, why did it take the Prime Minister 18 months to do it? Years ago he called the cap “punitive” and promised to scrap it, but then, once he had secured the leadership of the Labour party, he changed that tune. He said that Labour was not going to abolish the two-child limit. His Chancellor, who is sitting on the Front Bench, said that it was unaffordable. Just six months ago, the Government even suspended the whip from MPs who voted to lift the cap, but now that the Prime Minister’s leadership is under threat, it is the end for the cap. How long will it be before he goes the same way? That is the real reason we are debating the Bill today: we have a weak Prime Minister, running scared from his left-wing Back Benchers. Talking of the left wing, I expect that Labour will be joined in the Division Lobby later by some of the Opposition Members sitting to the left of me. No doubt the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru will also be competing to see who can be the most generous with other people’s money. Reform UK has jumped on the welfare spending bandwagon too. You will have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have not tabled a reasoned amendment today, not because we think that the Bill is perfect—I hope that is clear—but because any amendment would still leave us with a watered-down version of the cap. Other parties have got in a right muddle on this—one in particular—but to us it is clear and simple: the cap should stay. Anything else is a worse policy. Amending the Bill is not the right answer; the House should just vote it down. First and foremost, I have argued against the Bill on the grounds of fairness, but there is another reason to vote against it. More than 50% of households now receive more from the state than they pay in. The benefits bill is ballooning. Health and disability benefits alone are set to reach £100 billion by the end of the decade—more than we spend on defence, education or policing. The benefits bill is a ticking time bomb. We have to start living within our means. Other parties are simply in denial about the situation that we face in our country. The Conservatives are the only party that recognises how serious this is. We would not be spending more on benefits; in fact, we have explained how we would be saving £23 billion. We would stop giving benefits to foreign nationals, stop giving benefits for lower-level mental health problems and milder neurodiversity, stop the abuse of Motability, and bring back face-to-face assessments. We would get the benefits bill under control, and back people to work. Labour claims to be compassionate, but there is nothing compassionate about making welfare the rational choice, nothing compassionate about rewarding dependency over work, and nothing compassionate about saddling working families with higher taxes to fund political U-turns. Outside this place, people can see what is happening. They know when a system is unfair. They know when a Government have lost their way. They know when a Prime Minister’s time is up. Members should not be enticed by his final throws. They should step back and do what is right for the country. They should back people who do the right thing, back jobs and work and lower taxes, and back living within our means and raising the standard of living for everyone, rather than backing a policy that will add billions to the benefits bill and trap parents in a downward spiral of dependency. This Bill does not end poverty. It entrenches it, so we oppose it.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend has indeed made a significant point about the strange position in which so many Labour Members find themselves. Having previously voted against lifting the cap, here they are now, delighted about lifting it. Labour Members say that the Bill will end child poverty. They have read that increasing handouts will decrease the metric called relative poverty. However, relative poverty is a deeply misleading measure. It is not an accurate measure of living standards. It tells us nothing about whether people have enough to live on, or whether children will have better life chances. It can get worse when the country gets richer, even when living standards for the very poorest are rising, and it can look better when people are getting poorer. That is not progress; it is levelling down. Throwing money at one flawed metric is not a strategy. In fact, it risks doing the opposite of what Ministers claim to want, trapping families in long-term dependency rather than lifting them out of it. There is a proven way in which to improve children’s life chances, and that is work. Work allows parents to provide for their families, to pay the rent or mortgage, to put food on the table and clothes on their children’s backs, to set an example to their children, and to create structure and routine in their households. The Centre for Social Justice has found that children in workless households are four times more likely to be materially deprived, but under this Government the number of children growing up in workless households has risen at the fastest rate on record, and has now reached 1.5 million. Contrast that with our record, Madam Deputy Speaker. From 2014 onwards, the number of children in workless households fell year on year. We lifted a million people out of absolute poverty, including 100,000 children, and we drove unemployment down to historic lows. Under this Labour Government, unemployment is rising month after month, so, sadly, the number of children in workless households will continue to increase. Inflation is up as well, to almost double the level that the Government inherited. Higher inflation means that the money in your pocket is worth less: in other words, you are poorer. Fewer jobs, more unemployment, a higher cost of living—that is what the Government are doing to people. I say this to them: you do not lift children out of poverty by making the whole country poorer.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The fact is that people do the sums. That is the reality of the world we live in. The hon. Gentleman indicated that he is a member of the Treasury Committee, so he must be interested—even though he is looking at his phone—in these unavoidable questions. Where will the £3 billion to fund this Bill come from? Where will the £14 billion over a five-year period come from? We all know where it will come from: taxpayers—either today’s or tomorrow’s—and the men and women who get up every morning, go to work, pay their bills and do the right thing. In the last Budget, as she knows, the Chancellor made a deliberate political choice: to raise taxes on people who work and save, so that millions who do not work will receive more in benefits. Working families already make hard choices. Many already strive and struggle to live within their means. This Bill asks them to shoulder even more.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that all of us in this House care about poverty and children’s prospects, but the answer is not to spend more, to hand out more money and to trap people in worklessness; the answer is to support people to work, and that is exactly the opposite of what the hon. Lady’s Government are doing. We all know that bringing up children is expensive and important, but when working couples are having to make tough decisions about whether they can afford to start a family at all, they should not be asked to pay higher taxes to fund someone else to have a third, fourth or fifth child. Someone who is in work does not get a pay rise because they have another child. If we are serious about avoiding a benefits trap, whereby it pays more to be on welfare than in work, we should be honest about what happens if we lift the two-child cap. Benefits for individual households will rise by thousands. Nearly half a million households will receive around £5,000 more on average. A single parent on universal credit with five children could get an extra £10,000 without doing any work, taking their household income to more than £45,000, untaxed—people have to earn about £60,000 to get that income from work! Around 75,000 households will get between £10,000 and £21,000 extra as a result of this Bill. For some households, the extra money will be more than a full-time income, after tax, for someone on the minimum wage.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that the hon. Lady has some sympathy with the position of young people who are struggling to get jobs. My party halved unemployment; her party’s record is of unemployment going up and up. Since Labour has been in power, unemployment has gone up every single month. What is going on? What is going on is them: the Labour Government. Same old Labour—in they come and up go taxes and up goes unemployment, every single time. They put taxes up by £36 billion in their first Budget, and not just any old taxes. Their national insurance hike was specifically a tax on employment—literally a jobs tax. If you tax it, you will get less of it. That is not rocket science; it is basic economics.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Summer and holiday jobs are important ways for young people to gain experience before they leave education and seek full-time jobs, but there has been a shocking decline in the availability of such jobs because of this Government, who have increased regulation and the cost of employment—that is exactly the problem. On exactly the point about regulation and red tape, the Employment Rights Bill is making it harder for businesses to employ people. Labour says that it wants to achieve growth, but its policies are obviously going to achieve the exact opposite. The problem is that Labour Members do not understand business. Have they any idea how hard it is to break even, let alone to make a profit; any idea how hard it is for people who have started a business to bring in enough to cover the payroll each month, never mind pay themselves; or any idea how hard it is for business owners to make their staff redundant because they cannot afford to keep paying them? Of course they do not, because how many Labour Front Benchers have worked in a business—I am not counting union officials—let alone run one?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House regrets that both youth unemployment and the numbers of young people not in education, employment or training are rising as a result of the Government’s policies, such as increasing the rate of employer’s National Insurance contributions, reducing business rates relief for 2025-26 for retail, leisure and hospitality businesses, and passing the Employment Rights Act 2025; notes that these policies have heavily impacted the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors where young people often have their first job; further regrets that the Government’s inability to reform the welfare system will mean that young people struggling to find work are more likely to become trapped in welfare benefits dependency; and calls on the Government to back business, scrap business rates for pubs and high street shops, and back job opportunities for young people. This afternoon we are here to talk about young people—the young people who wake up every morning with nowhere to go: no classroom, no workplace, no sense that today will be different from yesterday. It is part of our job to put ourselves in other people’s shoes. Today, those are the shoes of a young man or woman who has just left school, college or university, and is setting out on real life in the world of work. That should be a moment of liberation, trepidation and excitement because the world is at their feet, but right now, for hundreds of thousands of young people, it is not. Just a few days ago, I was with a constituent who has just finished school. She is great; she has GCSEs and A-levels, she has done work experience, and she is charming and presentable. She has been applying for jobs day after day, but can she get one? Not a squeak—and that is in the bustling and vibrant economy of the south-east of England. She told me that it can be lonely being stuck at home all day applying for jobs, but she is not alone; she is in the company of many thousands of young people. Over 700,000 young people are unemployed—more than the entire population of Sheffield—and the figures are getting worse. Our youth unemployment rate is rising faster than that of any other G7 country. Nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training, and over 700,000 university graduates are on out-of-work benefits. Those are not just statistics; they are lives knocked off course—young women and men putting in hundreds of job applications and getting hundreds of rejections. They are getting knocked back again and again, and signing on to benefits because they see no other way. They are missing out on the chance to have money in their pockets that they have earned themselves, on the first step towards independence, and on the experience gained in the early years in work, on which future working lives are built. Forget saving to buy a first car or home; dreams and ambitions are being shot to pieces. These people are becoming Britain’s lost generation.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say that there is a place for programmes that support young people into work, particularly if they find that they do not have the skills needed to do the jobs in their area. When we were in government, we had programmes like that, and those programmes are being continued under this Government. However, there is a fundamental problem with the idea and concept of a youth guarantee, which has wobbled a bit at different announcements and different times. The problem is that the Government are trying to guarantee somebody a job, but destroying the jobs that businesses are creating. The right way to solve the problem is to back businesses to create jobs, not take some kind of socialist, communist or even Marxist approach and create a job with taxpayers’ money so that somebody is in work. The situation is looking pretty bleak. That is a disaster for a generation of young people and our economy, but it does not have to be like this. Even in a world of artificial intelligence, there is another way. It starts with backing businesses, because they are the ones that create jobs, and cutting taxes, cutting red tape, scrapping the swathes of regulation that stop businesses giving young people a summer job or a Saturday shift, and getting government out of the way so that young people can get on. I welcome the Government’s U-turn on probation periods—many businesses told me that that policy would have deterred them from taking a chance on a young person. I also welcome the Government’s latest U-turn on business rates for pubs How many U-turns are we on? Is it 13? What about the rest of hospitality? Why not adopt our policy and scrap business rates, not just for pubs, but for high street shops too? I ask the Minister not just to send young people off on more training courses or work experience schemes. What young people want now is jobs. Why not adopt our policy to double the number of apprenticeships and end debt-trap degrees, too? We do not have to have a lost generation, but we need a Government who will make different choices—who will back businesses to create jobs, scrap degrees that do not pay back, reform welfare so that it pays to work, help this generation make their way in life, and get our country working again.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes the point so clearly. It is so obvious to the Conservatives, as the party of business, that if the Government keep taxing business, there will be fewer jobs—but they just do not seem to get it. Labour Members do know that they are in trouble, though. That is why they are talking up their youth programmes, youth hubs and youth guarantees— [ Laughter. ] Labour Members are laughing, but they should listen. The hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) says from a sedentary position that it was our programme —exactly that! Most of these things are just rebrands of programmes that the Conservatives started. We started youth hubs. Changing the name of the youth offer to the “youth guarantee” does not solve the problem. Of course there is part to play for training programmes and work placements in helping people to bridge the gap between school and work, but Government programmes are not the answer to the fundamental problem. Young people want jobs, and this Government are killing jobs.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  I am perfectly well aware of the policy on national insurance. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that some Labour MPs do have business experience, but if we look at Labour Front Benchers, particularly those in the Cabinet, we will see that they are few and far between. If he has been talking to businesses—he clearly knows some—he will hear them say, as they have said directly to me and many of my hon. Friends, that it is the Labour Government’s policies that are making it so hard and so expensive to employ people, particularly young people. Even if Government Members do not have business experience, they could and should listen to what businesses have been telling them. For instance, Kate Nicholls of UKHospitality said that Labour’s 2024 Budget did “unthinkable damage” to the sector. She was backed up by her colleague, Allen Simpson, who said recently that if the Government continue their approach, “we will only see job losses and business closures accelerate.” That sector has shed over 100,000 jobs under this Government. Jane Gratton, from the British Chambers of Commerce, said that Labour’s policies are “deeply worrying for employers. They will increase employment costs, complexity and risk for firms, particularly SMEs…Government needs to help not hinder businesses”. That is the crux of the matter: Labour sees businesses as a cash cow, not as the engine of the economy, and young people in particular are suffering as a result. Before businesses start letting people go, they generally stop hiring, and that is what they are doing. And when they stop hiring, who gets hit hardest? Young people. By hitting hospitality—all those pubs and cafés where people get their first jobs—the Government are hitting young people again. The simple fact is that there are fewer jobs for young people under this Government. This unemployment disaster for young people is not something that has just happened on this Labour Government’s watch—it is a disaster of their making.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  I enjoyed the way in which the hon. Gentleman led into his question with a bit of flattery, but I will not be drawn on his attempt to make me talk about the minimum wage or down the routes that he asks me to take, as much as he may love me to do so. However, I will talk about our record in government. We halved unemployment. We got record numbers of people into work. We backed businesses to create 800 jobs for every day that we were in government. We reformed welfare to make work pay. We brought down the benefits bill. None of those things are on the cards under this Labour Government. They are crushing businesses with taxes and red tape, destroying jobs and driving up unemployment. They U-turned on welfare savings and put up taxes on working people by £26 billion at the last Budget to pay for the ballooning benefits bill. I will not argue that we got everything right. Some of the graduates struggling to get jobs have degrees that are not actually of any help to them, and they took those degrees when we were in government. Under us, through the pandemic and afterwards, the number of young people dropping out of work and on to benefits because of their mental health went up. We wanted to end the stigma around mental illness, but the consequences have been far-reaching. Our welfare system was not designed to support people with milder mental health problems or milder neurodiversity, or for a time when a quarter of people report themselves as disabled. The system is not working; instead, it is funnelling people off work and on to benefits. Now, with the Government’s failure to reform welfare, young people are stuck in a benefits trap—they are better off on benefits and fearful of losing them if they get a job. Let us add to that the stress and misery of trying and failing again and again to get a job, because jobs are fewer and farther between. Most young people I have spoken to do not want to be on benefits, but that is where they are ending up.